CHAPTER XIII.

LIES FABRICATED IN AID OF THE SHAKSPER PRETENSION.

"Lord, Lord, how this world is given to lying."

-First Henry IV, v, 4.

One of the first lies coined to give some importance to the Shaksper claim is the very silly one that the Earl of Southampton gave one thousand pounds to Shaksper. This lie was set in motion long after Shaksper died, and was an invention of Davenant, who was reputed to be a bastard son of Shaksper. One thousand pounds in the time of Elizabeth were worth as much as $25,000 now are. A constant repetition of this lie has the effect to make the careless reader believe in its truth. Yet there is no proof whatever to support the statement. Indeed there is no evidence that Southampton ever knew Shaksper. No letter of Southampton can be found showing even an acquaintance with Shaksper and if the Earl had ever given him any money or article of value, some evidence of it would long ago have been produced.

The second bold lie is the invention of Bernard Lintot, who got out an edition of the plays in 1710. He said that King James wrote Shaksper a letter with his own hand, and that a credible person then living (in 1710) who saw the letter in Davenant's possession, told him so. But Lintot took care not to mention the name of the credible person, and as Appleton Morgan well says, "had Davenant ever possessed such a letter, Davenant would have taken good care that the world should never hear

the last of it." It would have been set out in every biography of Shaksper at full length.

Another lie invented to give a reason for the learning necessary to make him a playwriter is that Shaksper was a schoolmaster. It was absolutely necessary to give him some education higher than that which the few months at the Stratford grammar school could have given him, so it is broadly asserted without the slightest scintilla of evidence to support the assertion that he taught school in his native county. One Beeston told Aubrey that there was a rumor that Shaksper was a schoolmaster, and so Aubrey gave out the story of Beeston for what it was worth.

Another lie has been added to the list of lies of which Shaksper's biography is made up, to the effect that Shaksper was a clerk in a law office and a law student. This lie was required for the reason that in some of the plays legal phrases are used and a familiarity with law terms is occasionably noticeable. Of course, if there was any evidence whatever to be adduced on this point, which would be worthy of the least consideration, it would long ago have been unearthed and quickly heralded to the world.

The most silly, stupid, and ridiculous guess of all the guesses put before the reading public to make out a plausible claim for Shaksper as the author of the Sonnets, is the one set in motion by Thomas Tyler, aided by the Reverend W. A. Harrison. This Tyler hypothesis, stated succinctly, is that Shaksper had a liason with Mrs. Mary Fitton, one of Queen Elizabeth's maids of honor, and that she was the black-eyed woman alluded to in the 127th and 132d sonnets. For the purpose of fitting Shaksper

in as the writer of the sonnets, the reading public is asked to believe that "the gentle Shaksper" seduced or was seduced by Mrs. Fitton, and that he, Shaksper, the seducer, put the whole matter in print in a very delicate way in the Shakespeare Sonnets, so called, for all after-generations to read. Although Tyler and Harrison can produce no evidence whatever that Shaksper ever knew Mrs. Fitton, this horrible story is suggested by them, and his character is blackened and hers also in order to impress the credulous reader with the belief that Shaksper wrote sonnets which he never claimed and which, as I shall show in a subsequent chapter, he did not write.

The most harmless lie of all, but one which nevertheless is a lie, is the assertion generally believed that Shaksper was married to Anne Hathaway, the daughter of Richard Hathaway of Shottery. While this lie is an unimportant one, yet there is no reason why it should not be exposed and the real facts given, as they appear of record.

In the Episcopal register at Worcester, under the date of November 27th, 1582, appears the following minute: "Item eodem die similis emanant licencia inter Wilhelmum Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton"; the licencia being one of matrimony, as shown by the previous entry. As no license was issued on the next day and as Shaksper was married on the 28th day of November, 1582, upon which day the marriage bond is dated, it is evident that a mistake was made as to the bride's name either in the license or in the bond.

But there was no child of Richard Hathaway of Shottery by the name of Anne Hathaway. The nearest resembling Christian name of any of his children was

Agnes Hathaway, and the Christian name given both in the license and the bond is Anne. The most reasonable supposition is that the maiden name of the bride was Anne Whateley and that she was the widow of one Hathaway and living at Temple Grafton at the time when she was married to William Shaksper.

As Morgan well says in his "Shakespeare, in Fact and Criticism," "The little cottage at Shottery, so long worshiped of tourists as the courting ground of great Shakespeare, may have to go into the limbo of exploded myths. Richard Hathaway of Shottery (owner of the cottage whose glories now bid fair to fade) in his will, dated September 1, 1581, bequeathed his property to seven children, among other provisions, giving six pounds thirteen shillings to his daughter Agnes, and as no Anne was mentioned (the other daughters being Catharine and Margaret) Agnes has invariably been supposed a clerical error for Anne. But Shakespeare study is fast being guided by modern students into the paths of common sense, and the convenient presumption that everything not accordant with the glib biographer of the greatest Englishman who ever lived, was a 'clerical error' is about to be pensioned off forever."

But the boldest and most astounding assertion is that William Shaksper wrote plays for Henslowe.

Phillips, in his "Outlines," Volume 1, page 109, gives currency to this huge lie by asserting the following: "Thus it appears that Shakespeare up to this period, 1594, had written all his dramas for Henslowe, and that they were acted under the sanction of that manager by the various companies performing from 1592 to 1594 at the Rose Theatre and Newington Butts."

Now I challenge any believer in Shaksper's ability to write plays to show that Shaksper is mentioned by Henslowe at all. If he had been able to write a play, he would have been hired by Henslowe, and the bargain and the pay would have been recorded. Or if he had been a dresser and reviser of plays, he would have been employed and paid for that work by Henslowe and the fact would have been noted. The Shaksperites, finding that Titus Andronicus had been put upon the stage in that year, jump immediately at the conclusion that Shaksper wrote it. And that is the sole foundation for the false statement that Shaksper wrote plays for Henslowe. It is true that Collier, in editing Henslowe's Diary, has seized the opportunity of inserting, in notes, references to Shaksper, so as to get his name into the index of the book. Not finding in the Diary the slightest allusion to his idol, he inserted in notes what he himself believed and what he desired the reader to believe.

I have paid no attention to the other silly lies invented. to please and gratify the longings of the people, who are naturally anxious to read or hear something, whether true or false, about a person believed to be a great writer. Among such is the invention of the glove story. Queen Elizabeth, they say, dropped a glove while crossing the street, and the courtly Shaksper picked it up and handed it to her, while making at the same time a felicitous impromptu speech in praise of the beauty and talents of the Virgin Queen. And another, the silliest of all inventions, is the contribution of John Jordan and others to the catalogue of Shakespearean poetry, which catalogue contains among other choice selections the following: